November 22, 2005

The hall makes a distinction between players and managers (and most managers are former players) Mr. Rose would be voted in based his playing ability and that should in no way be effected by his actions as a manager.

posted by HATER 187 at 09:05 AM on November 22, 2005

Drastic action is needed to prevent things that could destroy the integrity of the game The sad thing is, I'm not sure I see a whole lot of integrity in any professional sport these days. No doubt Rose is a kook, but no one can argue with the numbers he put up. C'mon...how do you not let Charlie Hustle in? Is it all about image? Who cares if makes some cake writing about himself. More power to him. I bet it's a very compelling read.

posted by willthrill72 at 09:14 AM on November 22, 2005

It is not him being a jerk that it is keeping him out of the HOF. It is the fact that he gambled on games that he was managing. That is a much bigger problem than the other problems that we see in sports today. Fans have to be able to trust that the outcome was legitimate and not manipulated for gambling purposes. He was willing to sacrifice that. Rose can forever serve as an object lesson for any player or manager who ever thinks about gambling on baseball.

posted by bperk at 09:43 AM on November 22, 2005

I've never been able to find out the details of his gambling. Was he betting against his team? Betting on a certain spread? An over/under? Anybody have any idea?

posted by DrJohnEvans at 09:49 AM on November 22, 2005

I'm glad that MLB stuck to their guns about the whole Pete Rose matter. It's one of the few times where Selig has done the right thing for the right reason. Now that he can't get in through the normal voting method, look for some people to nominate him to the Veterans Committee in the future. I'm not sure what MLB will do when that time comes, but I hope they keep him out. Baseball sure does pick and choose its moral high ground stances, huh? No betting, but let me turn around whilst you stick that needle in your bum. Just for the record: gambling and the integrity of the game is far more important than a bunch of players attempting to cheat. Everyone seems to get their back up about steroid users, but no one seems to freak out about corked bats and pitchers altering the baseball. Let's put it this way; the worst thing that ever happened in baseball was the segregation of the sport. The second worst thing that ever happened was the Black Sox scandal. I think you'd have to go pretty far down the list to find "minority of players using steroids" as a problem.

posted by grum@work at 09:58 AM on November 22, 2005

I would bet *snicker* that cheating has determined the outcomes to many more games than Rose's gambling issues.

posted by willthrill72 at 10:14 AM on November 22, 2005

Let me get this right...Gambling is morally reprehensible, yet cheating is o.k. People cheat to win. Winning at any cost is the (North) American motto. I don't think people have a problem with that. People gamble on the outcomes of games, and sometimes decide that it's easier to make money by having their team lose instead of win. It's easier to manipulate the score by deliberately performing poorly than it is to manipulate the score by playing better than normal. This "throwing" of the game would be affecting the outcome in a way that most people would find reprehensible. Let's put it this way; which is worse?

• Finding out your favourite pitcher used to scuff the baseball when trying to get a tough batter out.
• Finding out your favourite pitcher deliberately tipped his pitches and grooved them to the strong hitters because he was trying to do a favour for a shady gambler for whom he owed money.

I would bet *snicker* that cheating has determined the outcomes to many more games than Rose's gambling issues. Do we know that for a fact? The problem with point-shaving/game-throwing is that if the person doing the act was really good, you'd never know there was a problem unless someone told you.

posted by grum@work at 10:22 AM on November 22, 2005

Drastic action is needed to prevent things that could destroy the integrity of the game Hmm...any integrity the game might have had was pretty much lost when they whored it out to FOX.

posted by JohnSFO at 10:32 AM on November 22, 2005

The problem here is that you cannot say for sure how many HR's, for example, that McQuire hit while juicing. The same thing can be said for Sosa, Bonds and all of the rest. Steroids were not being tested untill just recently. On the flip side, there has been, for years, clear cut rules about gambling and MLB.

posted by daddisamm at 11:31 AM on November 22, 2005

Cardfan- If you're gonna quote me, at least get it right (you're not a reporter by any chance, are you?) I never said his gambling did not impact the games. My contention is was his gambling as a manager any worse than players cheating in the course of a game? They could both potentially alter the outcome of a game, even a season. Rose is looked upon as a pariah, yet the juicers and corkers are just shrugged off.

posted by willthrill72 at 11:48 AM on November 22, 2005

My contention is was his gambling as a manager any worse than players cheating in the course of a game? They could both potentially alter the outcome of a game, even a season. Can you folks seriously not see the difference between cheating to enhance the possibility your team wins versus purposely making sure your team loses so you personally gain financially?

posted by yerfatma at 11:51 AM on November 22, 2005

Willthrill72 You're right. My bad. Sorry. Nevertheless, any banned activity that changes or even has the potential to change a game is cheating and should be viewed as a disqualifier for HOF. I am a Big Mac fan but let the chips fall.

posted by STLCardinalfan at 12:09 PM on November 22, 2005

As long as Rose didn't bet on his team to lose I'm all good with him Do we want managers/players trying to win games or just cover spreads? I don't think we would recognize the sport anymore.

posted by STLCardinalfan at 12:16 PM on November 22, 2005

What Rose did was against the rules and he knew that. Additionally, the penalty for such violations was already established. So, my question is why should he not be subject to the punishment laid out in the MLB rules to be "declared permanently ineligible"?

posted by bperk at 12:25 PM on November 22, 2005

spira- None taken. And you are right. But I see a difference between pushing the boundaries and blatantly cheating. I don't want to start splitting hairs here. Pushing the boundaries is what sportsmanship is all about. Don't you think a player hitting 70+ HR's with a corked bat or on the juice takes something away from the game? However, an offensive linenman getting whistled for holding would not likely change the outcome of the game. I would like to think someone committing a foul or penalty should not be likened to cheating.

posted by willthrill72 at 12:43 PM on November 22, 2005

Spira But where do you draw the line? Why not arm the players so they can shoot their way around the bases?

posted by STLCardinalfan at 12:47 PM on November 22, 2005

I am a Big Mac fan but let the chips fall. I don't think Mark McGwire broke any rules, as there wasn't any steroid policy in effect when he was playing. As long as Rose didn't bet on his team to lose I'm all good with him. Actually, the absence of betting on his own team to win would be an indicator to the gambling folk he dealt with that he didn't think his team could win. As well, if he didn't have money on Game A, then what's to stop him from not using a relief pitcher in that game, and instead "saving him" for Game B the next day? Why would he do that? Because he's planning to bet money on Game B, and wants to make sure he has his best relief pitcher available for that game and increase his chance to win that specific game. But where do you draw the line? Actually, "cheating" occurs in lots of games, and the punishment is meted out almost immediately. A balk? That's cheating because you don't "set" (or you deceive the batter/runner by throwing the ball in a different base than you made a move towards). The punishment is a ball and the baserunner(s) advance one base. A baserunner hit by a batted ball? That's cheating because you interfere with the fielder's attempt to make a play. The punishment is the baserunner is immediately declared out. The rules are there to try and stop the cheating.

posted by grum@work at 12:58 PM on November 22, 2005

I'm okay with Rose not being in - and if he gets in, sure fine. God, I've participated in so many debates about what's worse or not so bad about his activities that I just can't bother anymore. For the record (again) gambling and point-shaving is the worst kind of cheating. Because it's cheating to lose and personally gain. Corked bats, screwballs and spitballs can all be called 'gamesmanship', occassionally. Interestingly enough, ESPN Mag this week had a feature about 'roids and baseball and Pete Rose was allegedly on them as well. Or at least he sold them. Ha!

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:04 PM on November 22, 2005

Another point of curiousity which will likely go unfulfilled: is there any evidence of (or argument for) Rose trying to throw a game?

posted by DrJohnEvans at 01:43 PM on November 22, 2005

I'm not a fan of lifetime bans. Fifteen years of shame serves enough of a punitive purpose. When Rose was allowed on the field during the 1999 World Series for the Mastercard all-century promotion, he was wildly cheered. Fans of my generation deserve a chance to see one of the greatest players we grew up with inducted into the Hall of Fame. It would also put to an end this argument, which otherwise will go on forever.

posted by rcade at 02:12 PM on November 22, 2005

By admitting Rose into the Hall, the message sent is clear: if--and only if-- you are an exceptional talent, you can aid in throwing games for financial gain and still get a pass into the Hall. Does anyone really want to see that Pandora's Box opened up? Thank you, qubit. That's the point of view I keep forgetting about. It shouldn't make a difference who you are or how great you were when you played: you break the rules, you get punished the same as everyone else. Would we be having this same argument if it was Tony Perez, Dusty Baker or Dave Kingman? (all of them retired the same year as Rose and were on HOF ballots at some point) Should they have let Palmeiro slide on the steroid punishment just because he was a member of the 3000 hit club?

posted by grum@work at 03:06 PM on November 22, 2005

I've always thought that Rose should be on the ballot; I just don't think he should be elected. The Veterans Committee will never vote him in. Of course, under the current setup, the Veterans Committee will never vote anyone in. I don't think anybody thinks Rose consciously threw games. John Dowd has suggested he saw evidence that implied Rose bet against his team, but he didn't write anything about that in his report and I'm far from convinced. However, Rose might've tried harder to win games he bet on than games he didn't. That's impossible to prove, of course; Rose himself might not know whether he did that. I think there is substantial eveidence that Rose bet on baseball games while he was still a player. Personally, I would like to see a Rose exhibit in the Hall, recognizing his achievements and his mistakes. Like him or not, he's an important figure in baseball history. STLCardinalFan - In some ways, the players are armed. Spikes aren't as deadly as guns, but they have been used to inflict severe harm. And of course players have bats, which can be used as weapons, as when Juan Marichal attacked Johnny Roseboro with one. In general, however, I think purposely and directly causing harm to others is an easy line we can establish not to cross. willthrill - I understand what you are saying. But if there are different levels of cheating, you have to establish the levels in the rules. And I think some penalties and fouls are clearly different than others. Some are the result of mistakes; others are the result of behaving quite purposely to rob the other team of a real chance and are sometimes even designed to hurt the other player. The most "classical" form of cheating in baseball is scuffing the ball. I suspect this has influenced the outcome of far more games than steroids has. And its practicioners are celebrated. Gaylord Perry wouldn't have had a career without illegal pitches. Nolan Ryan extended his career by using scuffed balls during his time in Texas (there was a good reason his control got better there). And in terms of morality, I can't for the life of me see the difference between scuffed balls and steroids. Sure, steroids have health risks for the user and using them may set a bad example, but neither of those things have anything to do with steroids as cheating. And the ironic thing is, of course, that steroids, until the last few years, haven't been prohibited by baseball, while scuffing the ball has. (And for anyone who wants to bring up the law, please don't. That would mean that use of performance enhancing drugs was fine before they were illegal and and also in countries in the Carribean where they are perfectly legal. There's a reason why baseball law is very different than society's law, why Rose's gambling is more of a baseball crime than being a coke dealer, even though the latter is far worse for society).

posted by spira at 03:17 PM on November 22, 2005

Shoeless Joe was never inducted in the HOF, but there wasn't an express rule prohibiting it. The writers took it upon themselves to exclude him.

posted by bperk at 03:24 PM on November 22, 2005

By admitting Rose into the Hall, the message sent is clear: if--and only if-- you are an exceptional talent, you can aid in throwing games for financial gain and still get a pass into the Hall. The only people who get into the Hall are exceptional talents.

posted by rcade at 04:41 PM on November 22, 2005

I disagree. Truly great players get into the Hall. What I meant by exceptional are those whose play transcends that of other great players almost to the point of defining their respective eras. Ruth, Williams, Mays, etc. Guys like that. Ryne Sandberg is in the Hall, but I wouldn't say he was an exceptional talent in the way those others mentioned were. His play certainly can't be considered legendary. Rose, on the other hand, had the stuff true legends are made of.

posted by qubit at 05:26 PM on November 22, 2005

Rose is most certainly not in the category of Ruth, Mays, Aaron, Schmidt, F Robinson, Musial, Cobb, Speaker, Wagner, Mantle , Williams, Gehrig etc. Rose was a singles hitter who lasted for a really long time and who made a name for himself with a very aggressive style. He was a very good hitter, but even his best season (1969, by far) isn't one of the top 250 seasons of all time at the plate. As measured by adjusted on-base plus slugging, he never had one of the top 5 offensive seasons in the league (he finished in the top ten 3 times: 1968, 1969 and 1976) And in the infield, he was terrible defensively. Plus, his recklessness on the basepaths pushed him into tons of extra outs; I believe he has the worst stolen base percentage of all time for people with more than 150 steals (the stat has only been measured since 1920). I'm not saying Rose was a bad player by any means. But lasting forever - way past the point you're any good - and playing aggressively does not make one an all-time great.

posted by spira at 07:49 PM on November 22, 2005

Thank you for a great comment.

posted by yerfatma at 07:58 PM on November 22, 2005

Wait, is the Kevin Costner IV like that Mash vodka IV gag gift my parents and their friends used to exchange as gag gifts back when they were fun?

posted by yerfatma at 07:59 PM on November 22, 2005

Awwww, yerfatma, you sweet, hateful SOB. C'mere, gimme kiss.

posted by chicobangs at 08:15 PM on November 22, 2005

(First comment on SpoFi. Bear with me.) My only qualm with Rose not being on the HoF ballot was that they made the rule about banning such players from being on the HoF ballot *after* he committed the crimes. For that reason alone, I think he should at least get one shot on the ballot. Doing so would pretty much defuse a lot of the argument, for the simple reason that he won't get voted in, anyway. For every media apologist he has, there is also a voter who won't forgive him for either his transgressions or for being such a jackass during this whole thing. Personally, I'd have no problem with him being allowed to be a commentator or scout or some other position within a baseball organization. But keep him away from anything where his judgments directly affect baseball games. He's thrown away his chance for that.

posted by TheQatarian at 09:36 PM on November 22, 2005

Grammar was always my goodest subject.

posted by TheQatarian at 10:14 PM on November 22, 2005

chicobangs: U R ALL GAY. ROSE WERE SUCKS AND HOF IS ONLY FOR THE **REAL** PLAYERZ!!! TheQatarian: I think that's a good point. In the land of criminal law, if you commit murder in a place that has no death penalty, you can't be sentenced to death, even if a death penalty is subsequently enacted. (Even if you're the inspiration for enacting it.) So, if there was no legislated HOF ban before this incident, he should be given a shot at it. (If you reasonably assume he would have otherwise been on the ballot.)

posted by fabulon7 at 08:01 AM on November 23, 2005

To me it has always been very simple. The Rose investigation was grinding the game to a halt. Despite some pretty good pennant races all that was being reported was what the investigator had found next - the papers were full of Pete with little interest in what was happening on the field. The investigator had Petey nailed. The Pete agreed to a lifetime ban from baseall if the Commissioner's office would stop the investigation (which was starting to turn up possible criminal activity). Petey took the deal. It is only a lifetime ban - Pete's life - not baseball's. As soon as his Death Certificate is filed with the Commissioner's office the ban should be lifted! The HOF should then put him on the ballot & he should be voted into the HOF (maybe eventually - depending on the writer's opinions at that time). Baseball will have it's greatest hustler (& hits leader) in the Hal, but Pete gave up the opportunity to be at the Induction Ceremony (& embarass himself & the game). He won't be the first posthumous inductee. Maybe Little Petey can give the speech – just for a little controversy.

posted by knuckleballer at 11:14 AM on November 23, 2005

His judgement with regards to gambling was stupid, but his play on the field was absolutely incredible. Rose played the game with the type of dedication, determination, and hard-nosed style every father/coach tries to instill in their sons/players. I don't need to see his bust on display in Cooperstown to understand that. Perfect assessment

posted by hump9n at 01:19 PM on November 23, 2005

Cheating is still cheating. Yes some get away with and that's not fair to those who get caught and some of the cheaters make it to the Hall of Fame. But I couldn't disagree more with those who say the Hall would be empty if you didn't allow any cheaters. What about players like Al Kaline? The man was so clean he squeaked. If you knowingly allow cheaters into the Hall, you lower the status of players like Kaline and that's too unfair to those of his type who did the right way.

posted by commander cody at 11:41 PM on November 23, 2005

Well we could have seperate wings. One for players like Kaline, Robinson, etc. and another (hopefully smaller one) called the astrisk wing for players who's membership is somewhat suspect for various reasons (gambling, cheating, steroids, racism, etc). In return for being admited to this probationary wing all of the suspect players would be required to maintain that bowling alley or wait tables in the cafeteria until they die as penence. Works for me, of course I have been drinking....so......

posted by commander cody at 01:56 AM on November 24, 2005

I'm not sure how we know Al Kaline was clean. For all we know, he was popping amphetamines daily. I'm not saying he definitely was, but given the fact that 90% of ballplayers of his time did take them, and all you had to do was drink the coffee in the player's clubhouse to take the amphetamines, it's highly likely that he did. Back to Pete Rose for a sec. According to wire reports, an auction house that is selling one of Pete Rose's old bats - the bat that is reported to have hit Rose's next-to-last major league home run - is reporting that the bat is corked. While Rose certainly did have some positive qualities - his genuine enthusiasm and love for baseball, his (for the time) unusual lack of racism and prejudice - I would not want any one to use Rose as a model of "dedication, determination, and hard-nosed style." Those traits are what sent Rose to prison and ruined his life. And while they sometimes helped him on the ballfield, because he didn't use his aggressiveness intelligently a lot of the time, they also hurt him on the ballfield as well. When it doesn't come with good judgement, a style like Rose's is likely to lead to disaster. He serves as a model of how not to behave. As I suggested earlier, I really do believe there should be a Rose exhibit in the Hall, recognizing his acheivements and his downfall. His successes and failures are great lessons for everybody else.

posted by spira at 03:42 PM on November 24, 2005